Morals have been neglected during Taiwan's democratization because the government and society have ignored the issue of historical justice.
The Chen Wen-chen Incident (
At that time, the KMT government claimed that Chen had committed suicide, however, an autopsy performed by an American forensics expert disputed this conclusion.
But history is not without irony. A few days ago, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) said at an international press conference that the autopsy on Chen was conducted by foreign experts, adding that foreign professionals helped clarify suspicions and showed good faith to the nation. Are these really the facts?
Lies are once again being spread by Lien and Soong, who at the time of Chen's death were high-ranking officials. They make us feel ashamed.
Chen had returned to Taiwan during the Martial Law era. An outstanding Taiwanese, he returned to visit his wife and son after signing a three-year contract to teach at Carnegie Mellon University in Pennsylvania. With his aspirations and a love for Taiwan, Chen had no reason to kill himself. His corpse was found at his old university.
After an autopsy by domestic coroners, an investigation by Taipei District prosecutors and a review by the Control Yuan, the official explanation was: "There is no evidence of murder. Accidental death or suicide are probable."
The distressed family of Chen, particularly his wife, Chen Su-jen (
The murder of Chen took place within two years of the tragedy in which former DPP chairman Lin I-hsiung's (林義雄) family was killed.
Lin's six-year-old twin daughters were brutally murdered along with their grandmother on Feb. 28, 1980. His eldest daughter, then nine-years old, was severely injured in the attack but survived.
No arrests have been made in the case. Lin and many Taiwanese believe the attack was politically motivated.
These cases darkened Taiwan's political outlook. Despite being stunned and startled, many Tai-wanese, both inside and outside the country, sought to redress the these wrongs.
Carnegie Mellon president Richard Cyert sent Morris DeGroot of the department of statistics and forensics expert
Dr. Cyril Wecht to Taipei to carry out an autopsy on Chen. After they dissected Chen's frozen body, they concluded: "Chen Wen-chen was a victim of murder. Unconscious, he was pushed down to his death from a fire ladder."
Soong, then director of the Government Information Office, obstructed redress in every possible way. Although he knew that the two Americans came to conduct an autopsy, Soong insisted that Associated Press reporter Tina Chou (周清月) replace the word "autopsy" in her stories with the phrase "inspection of Chen's body." Soong later cancelled Chou's reporter's license and deported her.
The ghost of authoritarianism continues to haunt the nation. On International Human Rights Day last December the PFP hindered Chou from visiting Taiwan and speaking at a conference held by the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy. Soong and the PFP's actions are to be condemned.
To restore the truth, Chen's violent death must be explained. Lien and Soong's allegation that the autopsy was conducted by domestic and foreign experts is a sheer lie. Instead of reflecting on political persecution by the KMT and apologizing for having interfered with the autopsy, Lien and Soong cited the Chen Wen-chen Incident as a pretext for the use of foreign forensics experts, hoping to further their demands for an independent investigation of the March 19 shooting of President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). Nothing could be more preposterous.
If Lien and Soong still have any conscience left, they should come to the Chen Wen-chen Memorial Foundation to apologize in person within 48 hours.
While in power, the KMT had prevented the foundation from registering under this name.
Yet history manifests itself. Without any awareness of history, the persecutors during the age of totalitarianism brazenly lie in public. In light of their past behavior, they lied deliberately in order to try to win the presidency. But their lies cannot whitewash the history of oppression of human rights.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
RSS